Friday, February 19, 2010
What's in an ethnic identity: A closer look at Inez Petersons text
In Inez Peterson's text, "What Part Moon", a detailed look was taken at ethnic identity, in particular native identity and how an individual may not physically look like he/she belongs in a certain ethnicity but in his/her heart he/she feels that they associate the most with a certain ethnicity. I thought the take home message from her text was that while an individual may not look like he/she belongs in a certain ethnicity because of their physical look, deep within themselves they are of mixed blood and wish to identify themselves with the many ethnicities they belong to or may wish to identify themselves for which group they feel they associate with the most regardless of blood lines. In the case of Peterson she physically looks white and non-native but she is by blood partially native and wishes to identify herself as a native American. But why must a person presume that they have to belong to a certain ethnic identity? Is it not possible that you can belong to any ethnic identity even if you don't necessarily have a blood line to do so. But is that the meaning of an ethnic identity? Ethnicity is different than race and which race we are in, even though each identity defines who we associate with the most as being our "heritage". I think that ethnic identity is a choice (as sociology states)and that an individual can actually choose which ethnic identity he/she feels they belong to the most whereas race is not a choice. Native American ethnic identity though has been a totally different case when compared to other ethnicities. People seem to be associating themselves as native even though that may be a far stretch from the composition of their blood lines( for example, only 1/25 or 1/16 native). But again blood lines are only half the story, as an individual may chose to not follow the same ethnic identity that their blood lines foretell them they must be. Ultimately what I'm driving at here is must we define as being a native based on the blood lines or should it be based on character? If we define it based on blood lines how much native blood should you have in you to be characterized as native, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2? Where do we draw the line? I think ethnic identity regardless of native or not shouldn't be left to blood lines but rather to what you as an individual feel is the ethnicity you can associate with the most. I think that is what Peterson's message was in her text.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When I was reading Peterson article, I could see that she was very annoyed that that fact that people did not recognize her as a Native. She did seem very proud of her Native American Culture, she learned to live with that fact that she didn’t look like her people. What she was trying to say in her article is to recognize who you are. She bring up very good point I really enjoyed reading this article, because I indentured with her story.
ReplyDeleteDionysis, I think her message can be interpreted into many different meanings. While I see it as a message about blood lines and ethnic identity others may interpret it differently.I think though the strongest point she makes in her text is the last sentence when asked about what part Indian she is, she replies her heart.
ReplyDeletePeterson's "What Part Moon" delves right into to the idea that she is stuck either embracing her whole heritage, or identifying with a single race. As a woman of mixed heritage she doesn't feel accepted into any set nationality, because she is never "enough" of anything. In the way that I see it, this also gives here the compete freedom to associate with whatever community she feel fit. I don't think that blood lines should affect the cultural identity you associate with at all, but it should be defined as what you feel comfortable being.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of your statements on ethnic identity. I think that it is interesting that sociology defines ethnic identity as a choice. Personally, I also feel that ethnic identity is a choice and a person should feel free to associate his or her self with whichever identity they identify with the most. However, I also think that one must still be honest and acknowledge what race they are physically. Emotionally and spiritually, one is free to associate with whatever race they want, but physically, I think that people must be honest with themselves and acknowledge their true blood lines. You can't state that you are Native American and automatically be considered Native American physically if you really are not. That would be lying to yourself and others. In truth, there are many aspects of cultural identity--physical, emotional, etc.--that one must consider.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting points here. I think people are too wrapped up nowadays in how they are X% white and Y% other ethnicities. I also noticed that people seem to have a certain desire to identify themselves as what they are in their bloodline rather than who they themselves are (ex: someone is 5/8ths German so they decide they need to learn to speak German and adopt German practices rather than simply being themselves and acting in whatever manner they feel fit)
ReplyDeletewhat you say about ethnic identity is true, and i think to a point, a person is defined ethnically by their own free will. and then again, people can't change their looks, or their genetics, well not easily..anyway the point i'm trying to make is that even though one may classify his or her identity as this or that, their genetic make up is definitely always there.
ReplyDeleteAS, yes I agree that blood lines are not important when thinking of a cultural identity but with regards to "What Part Moon?" I think that Peterson is trying to allude to how absurd it is to think of ethnic identity based on blood lines and physical appearance rather than acceptance into an ethnic identity.
ReplyDeletemichka, While I can see that blood lines are important in looking at certain ethnic identities why must we keep these identities in a box titled "blood lines"? Why can you not be native by heart because you feel sympathy towards the native culture and you would like to associate with natives in their cultural rituals? Even if you are White or Black, Asian or Islander, you can still associate with whatever cultural identity you feel most comfortable with, I don't see any issues with that.
ReplyDeletedxdrummer, I totally agree with your comment. People sometimes think that they are what their bloodlines tell them they are, rather than looking deeply into themselves on who they truly are as an individual. What does it mean to say that you are 0.15% Irish or 0.40% Russian? Does it mean you identify yourself as being an individual with multiple identities or an individual who is one that acknowledges his/her genetic makeup? I myself am 50% Lebanese and 50% Russian, does that mean that I am two identities? Of course not, I am what I feel is the culture I can associate with the most with the ideals they stand for or the cultural or ethnic values they hold, and for me that is being American. Cultural and ethnic identity can be what you want it to be for this exact reason, that is personal identification with ideals and cultures. If you feel that you can identify yourself as sharing certain ideals with a particular nation/culture, etc. then why shouldn't that be your cultural identity? That is my point and I think it illustrates the absurdity of basing ones life solely on what their bloodlines tell them who they should be or identify themselves as.
ReplyDelete